MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224274019 · doi:10.1111/1911-3846.12779

<i>Contemporary Accounting Research</i>: A Retrospective between 1984 and 2021 using Bibliometric Analysis*

2022· article· en· W4224274019 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Accounting Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccounting researchAccountingAuditSubject (documents)BibliometricsScope (computer science)Bibliographic couplingQuality (philosophy)Diversity (politics)CitationLibrary scienceRegional sciencePolitical scienceSociologyComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This study critically evaluates research published by Contemporary Accounting Research ( CAR ) between 1984 and 2021 using bibliometric analysis. We examine the following: (i) CAR 's publication quality and the factors associated with its citations and (ii) CAR 's scope regarding research diversity, methods, authors geographical dispersion, and collaborative networks. The methodology permits observation of finer collaboration details and research patterns not apparent by simply categorizing the data. We use tools such as performance analysis, coauthorship analysis, bibliographic coupling, and regression analysis. The bibliometric analysis shows improvement in CAR 's CiteScore and source‐normalized impact per paper over time, consistent with publishing high‐quality research. Our analysis reveals that authors' geographical affiliations, research subject areas, and research methods are not systematically associated with citations across our various subsamples. A notable exception is that research on audit topics generates more citations than studies examining financial accounting topics. Other factors significantly and positively associated with citations include article age, article length, number of authors, order of author names, and number of references. We also show that CAR has become more diverse regarding author affiliations, subject areas, and research methods than most leading accounting journals. Only Accounting, Organizations and Society emerges as more diverse, thereby serving as a benchmark for CAR in the future. CAR should consider focusing on high‐interest areas to boost citations and tightening its acceptance criteria.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.1050.265
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0000.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it